Page 3 0f 10
Plato’s main philosophy stemmed from the cave and was about knowing the theory of the forms. Here, he thought that the soul is a substance and is immortal, however the body- being physical- could be doubted as it was part of the empirical world.. Because Ideas aren’t physical things, they must belong to another realm, the higher spiritual realm. This realm is where the soul should arise to after death- described by Plato using the metaphor of a bird in a cage. Similarly to rising to heaven after death in Christian scriptures- Plato was a polytheistic Greek, the god referred to here is the God of classical theism that we know- although not a god that rules in heaven but the ultimate forms/ideas, these ideas being, justice, beauty and the form of the good. The soul being the life force and essence of personality and behaviour whereas the body was simply a “cage” trapping the soul during this life. The soul holds the awareness and knowledge of the forms Plato believed that things must consist of good and evil. Things that contain evil are things that destroy and harm another, thus ultimately destroying itself, whereas things that are good help to preserve. If a being has evil within it and this evil is not able to destroy it, then by logic, this being is indestructible. The soul must be freed from the body as it has restrictions whilst still contained, it cannot concentrate on its true purpose- contemplating the forms.
Plato suggests that we have innate knowledge of the forms and therefore we are bound to recognise similarities in the soul of others during this life, falling in love for example;- people recognise the form of love in other people and this is how humans fall in love. Similarly, the ignorant slave boy:- he recognised what a triangle was with no teachings in mathematics, there for in accordance with Plato he had innate knowledge of geometry.
Aristotle (384-322BC) believed that at the time of death the soul dies along with the body and both the body and soul cease to exist at this point. In this respect, Aristotle could have been considered a materialist rather than a dualism, however any such philosophies that reflect Aristotle are not referred to as materialist but Aristotelian dualism. Both Aristotle and Plato believed that the soul gives the body life. The soul is what turns flesh and bones into a living individual. Although, in the eyes of Aristotle, when the body dies the inseparable soul dies also. Aristotle built his
Page 4 0f 10
arguments on experience and his own observations unlike Plato who sought
knowledge from reason alone. His concept of the body and soul derived from his theory of the four causes.
Aristotle supposed that the ideal of an object – of which Plato believed was held in the realm of the forms- lay in the object itself in this world. . he developed a hierarchy in order to assess levels of sentience, humans – having the highest sentience level and possessing rational thought- were at the top of this hierarchy. Each individual had there own soul, but there are different levels for the soul. i.e. a dog has a doggy soul and a human has a human soul but we -as humans- are the only ones who can reflect upon sensations and feelings of which all things with a soul experience, for we are the only ones that have rational thought.. Then comes other animals, although they are aware they exist they have no awareness of individuality. For example, a dog looking at its own reflection in a mirrored surface recognises the fact that it is a dog however does not recognised that it is a reflection of itself.. And finally at the bottom of this hierarchy comes plant life. They exist however they do not know that they exist and have no recognition of individuality. It is possible to place Aristotle in the category of materialists, as he did not believe in a spiritual world, only a material one, however he did not deny this existence of the soul.
Other philosophers agreed with Aristotle that the soul animated the body and gave it life, philosophers such as St. Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274 AD). He referred to the soul as the anima, meaning, “animate”.
Aquinas believed that the soul is immortal using to the following logic: -
Everything will decay that is divisible but the soul is not divisible and will therefore not decay. He also suggested that the soul functions independently to the body but has a link to its particular body giving it individuality. This individuality remains with the soul after the body dies. He linked this into the Christian theory of reincarnation. These views were to become that believed by Christians today.
“COGITO ERGO SUM” – “ I THINK THEREFOR I AM” –
This sums up Cartesian Dualism, a form of dualism formulated and developed by Rene Descartes.
Descartes (1596-1650 AD) was a French philosopher who believed that the mind is
Page 5 0f 10
independent of the body, in later writings he saw life simply as a brain in a vat, for no one can be certain that it was anything more. Descartes recognised that the mind was a “non-corporeal” substance, distinct from a material substance, linked to the body (material) at the pineal gland located in the back of the neck in the spinal cord.
A mental act can result in a physical one, cause and effect, deciding to move ones arm (mental thought process) will result in the movement of the arm (physical process). He acknowledges that this sequence of events would make no sense if in fact the two worlds (mental and physical) were not some how linked. He argued that it was possible for one to conceive ones existence without a body, however it is impossible to exist with a conscious awareness. This awareness is what lets us know that we simple are. One cannot know that one is actually playing football or indeed has a body, but the one thing that we can be sure of is that we are a thinking being. This proves the minds existence but leaves room for discussion on that of the bodies.
Some of the philosophies concerning dualism have a basis only from reason, such as Plato. It is more logical to follow a path like Aristotle’s as he used reason, experience and his own observations. Surely an argument is stronger if it is based on more than just thought? Although Plato believed we could not rely on the empirical world.
Plato’s ideas seem to have been logically built upon, but they had no logical starting point. One could not be blamed for thinking that the body/soul distinction was a myth based upon Plato’s theories, however, both Aristotle and Descartes philosophies suggest at least a basis upon this world. Suggesting that the body/soul distinction is not a myth.
.
In contrast to dualism is materialism.
The term materialist describes someone who believes that the body alone exists. When the body dies the soul also dies with it and they both cease to exist for eternity. It is easy to steer clear of ideas that relate the mind to the body by describing everything in terms of physical objects. Anything mental is merely a bi-product of chemical reactions, e.g. ideas are just electrical impulses, thoughts and state of mind are chemical reactions.
“when I die I rot” –Bertrand Russell –as an atheist- did not believe that the soul existed. Both the body and mind were physical matter that decayed at death… the
page 6 of 10
mind ceasing to exist. He saw the soul merely as an illusion.
Similarly, David Hume believes that the soul is an illusion.
Gilbert Ryle (the concept of mind, 1949) was a behaviourist. He suggests that to think of the body and mind as equivalents (although in different forms) is a “category mistake”. A good example of how to describe this meaning is discussing how, say the university of London is referred to. In other words, London university (UCL) is made up of many different colleges, one may say “where is the university?” the university cannot be pointed out as an object but as a collection of buildings, organisations, professors and students etc. similarly you cannot point out team spirit to some one, it is simply something that is there to be seen in the actions of the team.
This, he believes, is the fundamental flaw in all dualistic approaches to solving the problem of the body and soul. It is in this way that he completely dismissed the idea of the soul, believing it is absurd to talk of the soul as something extra in a person. He believed that what the majority refer to as a soul was merely describing the way in which a person would act.
.We cannot get to know another person as we can never get to know what mental operations go on inside their heads, however, if what Ryle believes is true, there is nothing to know as all that a personality consists of is chemical reactions and bodily functions.
Then there are those who are idealists. Idealism describes the existence of the mind without the body, the mind being real and the body an illusion, and therefore simply unreal. Everything we know is in the mind. What can we know of the external world?
In contrast to materialism, all physical products and understandings are bi-products of the mind. But how can so many people see an object with all the same physical properties if it is merely an illusion to the individual mind? Bishop Berkeley (1685-1753) an immaterialist, suggests that all physical things hold the same properties to the individual as God is always there observing them.
In later writings, Descartes alluded to this as he talked of us being nothing more than a brain in a vat.
George Hegel was also an idealist, he believed that we can never really experience
Page 7 of 10
this world, it is merely played out by our minds. He suggested that the whole universe was a one as an absolute spirit. This spirit will go on as long as self awareness and self knowledge is achieved.
Similarly, Leibniz argued that there must be some sort of pre-established harmony in order for a mental and physical substance to work together. Leibniz ultimately believed that everything is divisible again and again until you come to something called a monad, a monad being a simple entity without extension, thus being mental.
These monads do not act upon one another but act upon there own according to their nature, however for them to work together & produce some sort of rational behaviour (e.g. A human being) there must be pre-established harmony. Leibniz understood that there was a dominant monad, this being the soul and all other monads worked harmoniously with it. Similar to Descartes views is the theory of interactionism. The body can effect the state of consciousness and ones states of consciousness can also effect the body, for example, the body sweats when we are in a nervous state of mind, the eyes water or cry when we feel extreme emotion.
In certain respects the mind relies upon the body to look after both of them. If the body does not eat or sleep properly this affects the mind, it may become dreary and the body can become weak. If this happens to a certain extent then the mind cannot possibly think rationally.
More so to Leibniz was occasionalism, there is no causal connection between physical and mental. Thus, upon the occasion of being hit, you register pain however this pain is uncaused as there is no link between physical & mental. You just happen to register pain at the point in time in which you were hit.
There have been many different views on the body/soul distinction since the problem first arose. There will always be doubt and uncertainty in peoples minds, however in this life all our questions shall remain unanswered. One can only imagine the complexities of an afterlife, whether it be Plato’s world of the forms or Heaven in accordance with traditional church doctrines. It is hard to define this discussion as
Page 8 of 10
myth as each philosopher has his/her own definition of the word. If we define myth as a story of which is told in order to explain what we cannot be sure of, then yes it is a myth. If we define it as creation myth then again the answer could be yes as it is a description of what has existed infinitely and will therefore forever exist but we shall never know. In conclusion I draw that there are many interoperations to be made, but all can only be in fair attempt of explaining the uncertain.
Page 9 0f 10
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anne Jordan, Neil Lockyer, Edwin Tate
Philosophy Of Religion For A level
Beverley Clack & Brian R. Clack
The Philosophy Of Religion, A Critical Introduction
Gilbert Ryle
The Concept Of The Mind
Page 10 of 10